Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: rxwine

Well, that article is mainly concerned with the sad state of affairs of science vs. public opinion and in no way is anti-climate change.

"Big Gap between What Scientists Say and Americans Think about Climate Change "

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/

That is true that is why I picked that article. But it is also no where near the 3% that was being thrown about in the earlier posts. Which was my original question.

You guys might as well have some legitimate scientific sources for your denial of global warming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

You can see from the opening graphic that people who believe in the things they believe are in the vast minority.

Quote: Dalex64

You guys might as well have some legitimate scientific sources for your denial of global warming.

Why do I need a scientist to tell me that we have no measurements for further than about 150 years back at all and that this incomplete data means no "trend" can be drawn?

Climate has been "changing" for 4.5 billion years.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why do I need a scientist to tell me that we have no measurements for further than about 150 years back at all and that this incomplete data means no "trend" can be drawn?

Well, there is often a point in any disaster where you could have made a decision and didn't, and then it is too late to come to the right conclusion -- like stopping a ship or freight train, you have a point where doing the right thing is not going to make a difference.

I'm not too worried about my wrong decision, if it is wrong. It's alternate jobs in a different economic activity, not true loss of industry.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why do I need a scientist to tell me that we have no measurements for further than about 150 years back at all and that this incomplete data means no "trend" can be drawn?

Climate has been "changing" for 4.5 billion years.

If there are no measurements further than 150 years ago, how do you know the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years?

Quote: Dalex64

If there are no measurements further than 150 years ago, how do you know the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years?

For starters we know there were glaciers covering much of North America at one point, indicating cold. We have written evidence of colder and warmer years. What we do not have are records of the temperatures that can be measured. So scientists guess. As the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out."

Quote: rxwine

I'm not too worried about my wrong decision, if it is wrong. It's alternate jobs in a different economic activity, not true loss of industry.

Not correct at all. New industry does not magically come about. If new electricity cost several times as much then less will be used, meaning less economic activity. For someone who says "listen to the scientists" you do not seem to want to listen to them when it comes to economics. 100% of economists believe that when the price of a commodity goes up less will be used.

Quote: AZDuffman

For starters we know there were glaciers covering much of North America at one point, indicating cold. We have written evidence of colder and warmer years. What we do not have are records of the temperatures that can be measured. So scientists guess. As the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out."

Ok, so you don't think they could determine the temperature precicely enough to come to their conclusions.

I believe they can, and so do they.

They can also guess the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air then, and can measure it now, and believe that humans are one of the causes for its increase.

I know you said before that you don't think a few percent can make a difference, but I do, and they do.

I believe them, and I do think for myself. That's why I believe them. I know another one of your beliefs is someone who agrees with a group isn't thinking for themselves.

Like I said, I am late to this, so sorry for repeated arguments and I apologize too for just not wanting to read the whole thread.

But I am really one of those guys in the middle. Here are my 2 cents.

*you have to have a certain amount of respect for the science. In the lab, everything is going to pretty much do what the scientists say it will do.

*in the real world, it's not so easy. I'm ready to accept that a certain amount of climate change is taking place, and that studies are showing that. How much of it is man-made is unknown. Humans have had catastrophic effects before on the environment and wildlife, and that is an area of concern for me personally.

*if you ask me the recent evidence is not alarming. I wouldnt be surprised at a reversal.

*the politicization is awful, and a lot of bad decisions are being made. From what I can tell, the UN's committee is full of lunatics.

*it's not clear what sensible things might be done, but it is pretty clear that China and India and others are going to cheat like hell on it, making what we do in the West a waste of time. Meanwhile jobs can get crushed.

* a lot of people are trying to get rich with what they must know are bad schemes. That solar outfit that Obama backed, Solyndra, sheesh.

*read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" ... he includes an essay about the politicization of Science that is really good .

Dalex I am curious since you are obviously totally invested in climate change. What time line do you see for the tipping point. I ask this since part of the problem I have is the computer models do not have any consistency in the time line. It can vary from a few years to decades or longer. This inconsistency is what gives me the doubt, that I often express here, which doesn't allow me to accept these predictions at face value.

A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be based on whether us doubters even accept the fact that the weather today is different than it was 20, 30 years or longer ago. For most of this is not the primary question. Where we disagree with you is that the link to CO2 as the reason is as solid as many would like to make it and is irrefutable.